EURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHrepository.lppm.unila.ac.id/8711/1/ejer18 - Masuk... · [email protected] Tel: +90 312 425 81 50 pbx Fax: +90 312 425 81 11 Printing Date

EURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Bimontly Peer-Reviewed Journal, Year: 18 Issue: 75 / 2018 İki Ayda Bir Yayımlanan Hakemli Dergi, Yıl: 18 Sayı: 75 / 2018

FOUNDING EDITOR / Kurucu Editör Veysel Sönmez, Hacettepe University, Ankara, TURKEY EDITOR IN CHIEF / Baş Editör Şakir Çınkır, Ankara University, Ankara, TURKEY EDITORS/ Editörler Ayşe Çiftçi, Purdue University, IN, USA Şenel Poyrazlı, Penn State University, PA, USA Laura M. Reid Marks, University of Memphis, USA Alfiya R. Masalimova, Kazan (Volga Region) Fedearl University, Kazan City, RUSSIA Hakan Atılgan, Ege University, İzmir, TURKEY Joe O'Hara, Dublin City University, Dublin, IRELAND Deha Doğan, Ankara University, Ankara, TURKEY Gökhan Atik, Ankara University, Ankara, TURKEY Nihan Demirkasımoğlu, Hacettepe University, Ankara, TURKEY Kamile Demir, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Antalya, TURKEY Işıl Kabakçı Yurdakul, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, TURKEY Cevriye Ergül, Ankara University, Ankara, TURKEY Kürşat Erbaş, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TURKEY Gülseren Karagöz Akar, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, TURKEY Arda Arıkan, Akdeniz University, Antalya, TURKEY Ali Ersoy, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, TURKEY Vesile Alkan, Pamukkale University, Denizli, TURKEY Jale Çakıroğlu, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TURKEY Refika Olgan, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TURKEY Meral Hakverdi Can, Hacettepe University, İzmir, TURKEY

INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD / Uluslararası Editörler Kurulu Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Sam Houston State University, USA Anita Pipere, Daugavpils University, LATVIA Aslı Özgün Koca, Wayne State University, USA Beatrice Adeara, West Chester University, USA Birgit Pepin, Sor-Trondelag University College, NORWAY Burke Johnson, University of South Alabama, USA Corrine Glesne, University of Vermont, USA Gerry McNamara, Dublin City University, IRELAND Danny Wyffels, KATHO University, Kortrijk, BELGIUM David Bridges, Cambridge University, UK David L. Haury, National Science Foundation, USA Ekber Tomul, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur TURKEY Erdinç Duru, Pamukkale University, Denizli, TURKEY Fatma Hazır Bıkmaz, Ankara University, TURKEY Hasan Hüseyin Aksoy, Ankara University, Ankara, TURKEY Iordanescu Eugen, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, ROMANIA Joe O'Hara, Dublin City University, IRELAND Sven Persson, Malmö University, Malmö, SWEDEN Theo Wubbels, Universtiy of Utrecht, NETHERLAND Úrsula Casanova, Arizona State University, USA Yusif Mammadov, Azerbaijan State Pedagogy University, Baku, AZERBIJAN

EURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Bimontly Peer-Reviewed Journal, Year: 18 Issue: 75 / 2018 İki Ayda Bir Yayımlanan Hakemli Dergi, Yıl: 18 Sayı: 75 / 2018

PUBLISHING MANAGER / Sahibi ve Yazı İşleri Müdürü Anı Yayıncılık Eğitim ve Danışmanlık Reklam Kırtasiye Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Şti. adına Anı Publishing Education and Consultancy Advertisement Stationary Industry Trade Co. Ltd. in the name of Özer DAŞCAN EDITORIAL PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATOR / Yayın Yönetim Dilek ERTUĞRUL HEADQUARTER / Yönetim Merkezi Anı Yayıncılık, Kızılırmak Sokak 10/A 06640 Bakanlıklar Ankara, TURKEY [email protected] Tel: +90 312 425 81 50 pbx Fax: +90 312 425 81 11

Printing Date / Basım Tarihi: 20.05.2018 Printing Address / Matbaa Adresi: Vadi Grafik İvedik OSB 770. Sokak No: 101 Yenimahalle-Ankara Tel: +90 312 395 85 71 Broadcast Type / Yayın Türü: Local Broadcast / Yerel Süreli Yayın Cover Design / Kapak Tasarımı: Anı Publishing / Anı Yayıncılık Composition / Dizgi: Göksel ÇAKIR The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors. Dergide yayınlanan yazıların tüm sorumluluğu yazarlarına aittir. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (Print ISSN 1302-597X, e-ISSN: 2528-8911) is a bimonthly (6 issues per year) peer-reviewed journal published by Anı Yayıncılık. © 2018 ANI Publishing. All rights reserved. © 2018 ANI Yayıncılık. Tüm hakları saklıdır.

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER) is abstracted and indexed in;

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

Social Scisearch,

Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Editon,

Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC),

Educational Research Abstracts (ERA),

SCOPUS database,

EBSCO Host database,

ULAKBİM national index.

CONTENTS

İçindekiler

REVIEWERS of the 75th ISSUE 75. Sayı Hakemleri

A Review on Effectiveness of Cello Etudes Created for Longas and Syrtos Burcu AVCI AKBEL ..................................................................... 1-18

Examining Mental Health Professionals’ Social Justice Attitudes in Turkey Dilek Yelda KAGNICI, Serkan DENIZLI ....................... 19-36

As a Potential Source of Error, Measuring the Tendency of University Students to Copy the Answers: A Scale Development Study Ergul DEMIR................................................................... 37-58

The Pedagogical Beliefs and Instructional Design Practices: Pre-Service IT Teachers’ Case Emine SENDURUR ...................................................... 59-80

Cooperative Learning and Learning Achievement in Social Science Subjects for Sociable Students HERPRATIWI, DARSONO, SASMIATI, PUJIYATLI .... 81-98

A Comparison of Difficulty Indices Calculated for Open-Ended Items According to Classical Test Theory and Many Facet Rasch Model Mustafa ILHAN, Nese GULER .................................... 99-114

Adapting a Residential Course to Web-Based Blended Learning Busra OZMEN, Tansel TEPE, Hakan TUZUN ......... 115-136

The Relationship between Psychological Capital and Stress, Anxiety, Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Job Involvement Selcuk DEMIR ....................................................................... 137-154

Education for Syrian Refugees: Problems Faced by Teachers in Turkey Pelin TASKIN, Ozge ERDEMLI ........................................... 155-178

The Effects of Sample Size and Missing Data Rates on Generalizability Coefficients Sumeyra SOYSAL, Haydar KARAMAN, Nuri DOGAN ... 179-196

Effectiveness of Project Based Learning in Statistics for Lower Secondary Schools Tatag Yuli Eko SISWONO, Sugi HARTONO, Ahmad Wachidul KOHAR ................................................................................... 197-210

Begüm Aytemur

Burcu Pehlivan Tunç

Deha Doğan

Duygu Anıl

Emrah Gül

Fazilet Taşdemir

Funda Nayır

Gülşen Taşdelen Teker

Hasan Çakır

Kıvanç Aycan

Leman Tarhan

Mehmet Tekerek

Mesut Türk

Murat Özdemir

Münevver Başman

Nilgün Tosun

Saadet Kuru Çetin

Sema Buz

Şenel Poyrazlı

Tuncay Öğretmen

Tuncay Sarıtaş

Vesile Alkan

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 75 (2018) 81-98 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

www.ejer.com.tr

Cooperative Learning and Learning Achievement in Social Science Subjects for Sociable Students HERPRATIWI1, DARSONO2, SASMIATI3, PUJIYATLI4

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article History:

Received: 15 Nov. 2017

Received in revised form: 4 Apr. 2018

Accepted: 28 Apr. 2018

DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2018.75.5

Purpose: The research objective was to compare

students’ learning achievement for sociable learning

motivation students in social science (IPS) using

cooperative learning. Research Methods: This

research used a quasi-experimental method with a

pre-test/post-test design involving 35 fifth-grade

students. The learning process was conducted four

times in one semester. The social science (IPS)

learning outcome was measured using an essay test

comprising eight items. The data concerning sociable

learning motivation were obtained from a

questionnaire comprising 29 items, with α = 0.956.

Keywords sociable motivation, cooperative learning, elementary school

Findings: Using a paired-sample t-test, the analysis showed that there was a significant increase in students’ motivation after implementing cooperative learning. The results also showed a positive correlation between students’ curiosity and their perseverance in doing the task. Implications for Research and Practice: The results of this research confirm that cooperative learning can significantly increase students’ motivation. Teachers should attempt to implement cooperative learning in their classes to ensure students’ motivation to learn.

© 2018 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved

1 Corresponding Author: Faculty of Teacher and Training Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia. Email: [email protected]. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4226-2757 2 Faculty of Teacher and Training Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8031-4533 3 Faculty of Teacher and Training Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1097-6704 4 Faculty of Teacher and Training Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9228-5191

82 HERPRATIWI – DARSONO – SASMIATI – PUJIYATLI Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 75 (2018) 81-98

Introduction

Learning outcomes and activities for social science (IPS) are low in elementary

school (SD) class V (students approximately ten years old) in Bandar Lampung,

Indonesia. Further, students lack the confidence to express their opinions and answer

teachers’ questions. Previous studies concerned with teaching and learning processes

for social science in elementary school found similar results (Nurjanah, 1912; Yulyani,

2016; Hendarwati, 2016). Learning outcomes are influenced by three factors: (a)

internal factors, including physical and psychological factors, which inherently exist

within the individual who is in the process of learning, (b) external factors, which exist

outside the individual, including family, school and community factors. One of the

most important internal factors is motivation (Ulstad, 2016; Jo & Park, 2016).

Motivation is defined as an attempt to achieve a goal, or an ability to meet

individual needs (Robbins, 1996). Motivation is a process consisting of three parts.

Firstly, it concerns something that makes someone move (arise) or do something.

Secondly, it concerns the process of motivation as a direction to meet a need. Thirdly,

it deals with something that maintains (maintenance) the chosen path so the need is

met (Barron and Greenberg, 1998). Motivation is a factor that makes someone do

something; it activates and energizes (Ulstad, 2016; Atak, 2016; Ball, 2016; Gabrielle,

2016; Nashar, 2004).

Learning motivation is the effort students make to reach the target to find

meaningful learning activities that are valuable and educative (Atak, 2016). According

to Pangesti (2014), there are four styles of student learning motivation: achiever,

sociable, conscientious and curious. Achiever students tend to excel in competition;

they are competitive and influenced by friends and family factors. Sociable students

have a spirit of togetherness, non-competitiveness and are cooperative by nature.

Students with this motivation enjoy mutual success to achieve learning outcomes and

high productivity (Gillies, 2016; Johnson, 2002; Zhang, 2015; Reigeluth, 2016).

Cooperative learning focuses on the interaction among students and their

cooperation to achieve mutual benefits (Zhang, 2017) and is highly systematic (Zhang.

2015). Cooperative learning fosters positive interdependence, individual and group

accountability, and interpersonal skills to improve team effectiveness (Cheruvelil,

2014). Cooperative learning can improve students’ achievements (Leasa, 2017; Casey,

2015), knowledge and skills, learning motivation, self-esteem Further, it can reduce

anxiety and create a harmonious environment (Xue, 2018; Fernandez, 2017). In

cooperative learning, knowledge is built through social interaction, (Jarvela, 2015,

Huang, 2014). Students with a conscientious motivation style better perform activities

if they have received clear guidance regarding the rules. Students who are motivated

by curiosity are always inquisitive. They do not like the establishment, and they like

scientific developments.

According to Goleman (2001), motivation in learning has six aspects: (1) pleasure,

learning pleasure, attention and interest in learning, (2) orientation to the mastery of

material, (3) curiosity, (4) tenacity in doing the tasks, (5) high involvement in tasks,

and (6) orientation to challenging, difficult and new tasks. Students with different

HERPRATIWI – DARSONO – SASMIATI – PUJIYATLI Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 75 (2018) 81-98

83

levels of motivation require different learning approaches. It follows that achiever

students might need different learning approaches than students with sociable,

conscientious or curious motivations.

Considering these previous studies, we decided to examine whether cooperative

learning had any influence on IPS achievement for elementary school students in

Bandar Lampung City, Indonesia. This study focused on students who have a sociable

learning motivation for achievement in IPS.

Method

Research Design

This study used quasi-experimental methods aimed at measuring the impacts and

deducing the changes induced by treatment. It also aimed to discover any cause-and-

effect relationships in non-deterministic ways. Rather, it is merely probabilities or

increasing probabilities of occurrence (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Shadish, 1995; Shadis

et al., 2002). The study sample was determined by a random sampling technique

(Roscoe, 1975). The number of samples was determined using Isaac and Michael’s

table (Isaac, 1981) with a five percent error rate, resulting in a sample comprised of 35

students (20 female and 15 male) of grade V primary school with an average age of 10

years. The study was conducted four times in one semester.

Research Instruments

The data on student motivation were collected using a questionnaire consisting of

six aspects (Goleman, 2001) namely, (1) pleasure, enjoyment in learning, indicated by

paying attention to study, having an interest in learning, being happy to do the task

(rated by 6 statements, item numbers 1–6), (2) orientation to mastery of the material,

indicated by being capable of presenting the material, (rated by 4 statements, item

numbers 7– 10), (3) curiosity, indicated by motivation to find out new things (rated by

6 statements, item numbers 11– 14), (4) tenacity in performing tasks, indicated by being

fully focused on accomplishing the tasks, being tough (rated by 6 statements, item

numbers 15–20), (5) high involvement in tasks, indicated by being diligent in

completing the task, concentrating on tasks and taking time to learn (rated by 6

statements, item numbers 21– 26 ), and (6) orientation towards new and challenging

tasks, indicated by being motivated to do the tasks (rated by 3 statements, item

numbers 27– 29), see Table 1.


Table 1

Questionnaire on Learning Motivation and Number of Statements

Aspects Measured Number of Items

Pleasure, the enjoyment of learning

Orientation to the mastery of the material

Curiosity

Tenacity in doing the task

High engagement on task

Orientation to new and challenging tasks

Total

6

4

6

6

6

3

29

Table 2 shows the reliability values for the questionnaire, where the following

Cronbach's Alpha values were found: the pleasure indicator, the enjoyment of learning

(0.89), the orientation to the mastery of the material (0.85), curiosity (0.81), tenacity in

doing the task (0.86), high involvement in assignments (0.91) and orientation to new

and challenging tasks (0.93). Based on this reliability test, it can be seen that all aspects

have a Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.956. It was inferred that the items in the

questionnaire were reliable and all tests were internally consistent because they had

strong reliability (Maier, Wolf & Randler, 2016; Bonett & Wright, 2015; Rainsch, 2004).

Table 2

The Reliability Aspects of Learning Motivation

Aspects Measured Cronbach's Alpha Value

Pleasure, the enjoyment of learning

Orientation to the mastery of the material

Curiosity

Tenacity in doing the task

High engagement on task

Orientation to new and challenging tasks

Total

0.89

0.85

0.81

0.86

0.91

0.93

0.956

The data on learning outcomes were collected using a self-explanatory test (essay)

consisting of eight items developed by the authors and taken from the standard

competence “The role of Indonesia in Southeast Asian countries” and the basic

competencies of describing the background of the formation of Southeast Asian

countries. The eight items covered remembering (numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6) and

understanding (numbers 3, 4, 7 and 8) and were scored according to reliability, validity

and the level of difficulty, scored as low, medium, and difficult. The results are shown

in Table 3.


85

Table 3

Instrument Aspect of Learning Result Test of IPS

No Target

Indicator

Thinking

Step

Question

Number Validity Reliability

Different

Score

Difficulty

Level

1.

Describing

the national

historical

artifacts of

Hinduism,

Buddhism,

and Islam in

Indonesia

C1 1, 2 0.82 0.87 high easy

2.

Giving an

example of

the national

historical

artifacts of

Hinduism,

Buddhism,

and Islam in

Indonesia

C2 3, 4 0.80 0.92 high medium

3.

Recounting

the historical

characters of

Hinduism,

Buddhism,

and Islam in

Indonesia

C1 5, 6 0.80 0.91 high medium

4.

Giving an

example of

the historical

characters of

Hinduism,

Buddhism,

and Islam in

Indonesia

C2 7, 8 0.86 0.94 high difficult

Data Analysis

Table 4 shows that a one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmed the data for

learning motivation were normally distributed (Yu Zheng, 2008).


Table 4

Test Results of Normality Data

Measurement Aspect Kolmogorov-Smirnov Significance Score

Pleasure, the enjoyment of learning 0.221 0.200

Orientation to the mastery of the material 0.248 0.200

Curiosity 0.318 0.075

Tenacity in doing the task 0.302 0.073

High engagement on task 0.267 0.200

Orientation to new and challenging tasks 0.257 0.200

A homogeneity test using one-way ANOVA (Donald, 2010) found a significance

level of 0.100> 0.05, indicating that the sample was homogeneous.

The data were analyzed by a paired-samples t-test because it used a one-sample t-

test design (Donald, 2010). The steps in the data analysis are shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Data Analysis Steps

Step Purpose Analysis

1 Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha test

2 Correlation between variables Correlation analysis

3 Different test before and after acknowledgment Paired-samples t-test

Results

The mean and standard deviation for each of the six aspects of learning motivation

were compared. Table 6 shows that the highest average was for high-engagement on

the task (26.49 ± 3.38), followed by pleasure and enjoyment of learning (26.06 ± 2.71),

tenacity in performing tasks (26.00 ± 3.92), curiosity (25.89 ± 3.37), orientation to the

mastery of the material (15.37 ± 3.51) and orientation to new and challenging tasks

(12,17 ± 2,63). Of the six aspects, orientation towards new and challenging tasks was

the lowest, and engagement on the task enjoyed the highest position.

Table 6

Mean and Deviation Standard of Learning Motivation

Pleasure, the pleasure to learn Mean Std. Deviation

Orientation to the mastery of the material 26.06 2.71

Curiosity 15.37 3.51

Tenacity in doing the task 25.89 3.37

High engagement on task 26.00 3.92

Orientation to new and challenging tasks 26.49 3.38

Pleasure, the enjoyment of learning 12.17 2.63


87

The mean and standard deviation for each of the four indicators of IPS learning

outcomes were compared. Table 7 shows that the highest average score was for

explaining the meaning of the formation of Southeast Asian countries (2.83 ± 0.00),

followed by explaining Indonesian foreign policy ( 2.77 ± 0.00), giving examples of

Indonesia's role in Southeast Asian countries (2.74 ± 0.71) and giving examples of

Indonesia's foreign policy role in international regulations (2.71 ± 0.00).

Table 7

Mean and Standard Deviation of Learning Results

Learning Result Mean Std. Deviation

Describing national historical relics of Hinduism,

Buddhism, and Islam in Indonesia

2.83

0.00

Giving an example of national historical relics of

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam in Indonesia

2.74 0.71

Recounting the historical characters of Hinduism,

Buddhism, and Islam in Indonesia

2.77

0.00

Giving an example of the historical characters of

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam in Indonesia

2.71 0.00

The six aspects of student learning motivation were analyzed by correlation

analysis. The results presented in Table 8 show that curiosity had a significant

relationship with tenacity in doing the task (r = 0.852 and p < 0.005) The correlation

analysis between these two aspects of learning motivation did not show a closer

relationship among the other four aspects. Therefore, further analysis was needed

regarding the correlation.

Table 8

Intercorrelation of Student Learning Motivation

Pleasure in

Learning

Orientation

to mastery

of the

material

Curiosity Tenacity in

doing the

task

High

engagement

on task

Orientation

to new and

challenging

tasks

R Sig R Sig R Sig R Sig R Sig R Sig Pleasure, the

desire to

learn

- - .809 .000 .659 .000 .680 .000 .533 .001 .399 .018

Orientation

to mastery of

the material

.809 .000 - - .524 .001 .567 .000 .586 .000 .521 .001

Curiosity .659 .000 .524 .001 - - .852 .000 .791 .000 .513 .002

Tenacity in

doing task

.680 .000 .567 .000 .852 .000 - - .831 .000 .607 .000

High

engagement

on task

.533 .001 .586 .000 .791 .000 .831 .000 - - .540 .001

Orientation

to new and

challenging

tasks

.399 .018 .521 .001 .513 .002 .607 .000 .607 .000 - -


Regression analysis was carried out to ascertain whether the learning outcome for

IPS students who have sociable learning motivation was predicted by the aspects of

curiosity and tenacity in doing the task and to identify which of these two aspects was

the stronger predictor of learning outcome. Regression analysis was done to determine

the extent to which the aspect of desire wants to know and tenacity in doing the task.

Regression analyses were performed with either curiosity or tenacity in doing the

task as the independent variable and learning outcomes as the dependent variable.

Tables 9 and 10 show that curiosity explained 37.6 percent (significance 0.000 < 0.05),

and tenacity explained 30.2 percent (significance 0.001< 0.05) of the learning outcome.

The regression equation with curiosity as the independent variable was

determined as Y = 58.060 + 1.317X. With tenacity in doing the task as the independent

variable, it was determined as Y = 65.679 + 1.016X; where Y is the learning outcome

and X is the independent variable

Table 9

Constant Value of to Know Aspect and Tenacity in Doing the Task

Model Unstandardized

Coefficient

Standardized

Coefficient

T Sig

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant)

Curiosity

58.060

1.317

7.744

0.297

0.611

7.497

4.437

0.000

0.000

(Constant)

Tenacity in Doing

the Task

65.679

1.016

7.082

0.269

0.550

9.275

3.778

0.000

0.0001

Table 10

The Amount of Desire to Know Aspects and Tenacity in Doing the Task

Model1 R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Curiosity 0.611 0.374 0.355 5.841

Tenacity in Doing the Task 0.550 0.302 0.281 6.167

The data in Table 10 show how curiosity and tenacity in doing the task contributed

to learning outcomes. The results of the analysis showed that these two aspects were

predicted to be significant in determining the learning outcome. The most obvious

contribution to the variance was curiosity (β = 611), followed by tenacity in doing the

task (β = 551). Curiosity and tenacity in doing the task both had the potential to be a

variable to improve learning outcomes.

To find out which of these two independent variables acted as a predictor of

learning outcomes, multiple regression analysis with a stepwise approach was

performed. As shown in Table 11, when the two independent variables were included

in the equation, only the curiosity variable was statistically significant in predicting

learning outcome. The analysis showed that curiosity was predicted to contribute to

learning outcomes (β = 0.611, p < 0.01). It was found that curiosity contributed 37.4


89

percent and tenacity to do the task contributed 30.2 percent to learning outcomes.

Specifically, curiosity and tenacity played an important role in predicting learning

outcomes.

Table 11

Regression Analysis Aspects of Curiosity and Tenacity

Variable B SE B Beta (β) t Sig

Curiosity 1.317 0.297 0.611 4.437 0.000

Tenacity in Doing the Task 1.018 0.269 0.550 3.778 0.001

Table 12 shows the results of the descriptive statistical analysis. The average pre-

test score was 53.333 ± 11.610 with a standard error of 1.962, and the average post-test

score was 76.191 ± 12.806 with a standard error of 2.164.

Table 12

Statistical Results of Paired Sample

Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean

Pair 1 Pre-test

Post-test

53.333

76.191

35

35

11.610

12.806

1.962

2.164

Table 13 shows the results of the correlation analysis between the two pairs of

data (pre-test and post-test scores). The correlation coefficient of 0.811 was significant

(0.000 < 0.05), indicating indicated that both pairs of data were correlated.

Table 13

Correlation Test Result of Paired Sample

N Correlation Sig

Pair 1 Pre-test & Post-test 35 0.811 0.000

Table 14 shows the average difference between the pre-test and post-test scores.

The calculated value of t was less than the t-table value (significance 0.000< 0.05);

consequently, there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test

scores. Thus, it was concluded that learning outcomes improved for grade V

elementary school students, with higher scores obtained after IPS was taught with

cooperative learning.


Table 14

Test of Paired Sample

Paired Differences

T df Sig (2-

tailed)

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Mean Std

Deviation

Std

Error

Mean

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Pre-test-

Post-test

-1.785 7.600 1.2846 -20.469 -

15.247

-

13.901

34 0.000

Based on the analysis, it appears that the learning outcome in social studies subjects

for students who have sociable learning motivation was higher after being instructed

using cooperative learning. However, the subject matter of social studies was tested

only in the dimensions of the cognitive process of remembering and understanding

and in the dimension of factual and conceptual knowledge (Anderson, 2001).

Group learning can improve learning outcomes for students with sociable learning

motivation. With cooperative learning, students experience the process of diffusion

and socialization and have an unlimited view of science. Students with sociable

learning motivation have a spirit of togetherness and non-competitive cooperation

(Pangesti, 2014). These students need a learning atmosphere that demands

cooperation, not competition, and learning should enable students to socially interact

(Costa, 2014). Cooperative learning is imbued with constructivist theory, where

learning involves students building personal and social knowledge. This is in

accordance with Vygotsky's social reconstruction theory, which places students in the

closest zone of child development or Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Salomon,

1989; Clapper, 2015; Lantolf, 2015; Gommans, 2015). This theory attempts to persuade

students to learn in their proper position according to the level of child development

and to guide learners at the beginning of the learning phase, and then reduces their

guidance when learners have started to take responsibility for learning. This stage is

often called scaffolding (Rojas-Drummond, 2015; Gibbons, 2002; Smit, 2013; Wilson,

2014). Based on the theory of social reconstruction, learners are instructed with an

applicable situation in their daily lives where values, knowledge, and skills in social

life are central to education (Taghibaygi, 2015). In this process, the students are in their

respective development zones and are guided at the beginning of the lesson. They are

gradually given responsibility for completing tasks themselves in their study groups.

This allows students to construct and reconstruct their understanding of the material

(Maulidi, 2016).

Teachers can use cooperative learning daily to support students’ learning in every

subject, from basic skills to complex problem-solving. Characteristics of cooperative

learning are positive interdependence among students, face-to-face interaction

(educational interaction), personal responsibility to groups and skills in

communicating in groups. Cooperative learning emphasizes group achievement. The


91

purpose of cooperative learning is to give students the knowledge, concepts, abilities,

and understanding they need. In cooperative learning, students are placed in small

heterogeneous groups (4 to 5 students) to complete group tasks prepared by teachers

and followed with individual assistance for students who need it.

Group heterogeneity includes gender, race, religion (if possible), skill levels (high,

medium, low), and so on (Slavin, 2014). Cooperative learning enables students to work

in teams and assume responsibility for managing, checking, helping each other in the

face of problems, encouraging each other forward and getting scaffolding from

teachers and friends (Sumaryati, 2013). The results prove that cooperative learning

effectively increases students’ motivation and performance, as stated by researchers

such as Slavin (2014), Slavin (2015), and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2013).

According to Albers (2008), when students have an opportunity to interact with

others, they succeed in interpreting solutions in learning. Experience in

communicating can provide a potential source of knowledge about learning.

Constructive interactions that include knowledge of the purpose and implementation

guidance can build up an individual's thinking and generate new knowledge. New

knowledge will be stored in long-term memory if the students are directly involved in

the process of understanding and constructing their own concepts or knowledge.

Students with sociable motivation will be able to apply the knowledge that has been

obtained in new situations (Carin, 1993).

There is a need for a learning strategy that aims to assist students in linking theory

to its implementation in everyday life so they have a mindset for understanding logic.

Students should not just spend their time listening and completing tedious exercises.

Exams should not only test understanding and measure students' ability to memorize

facts without them knowing what they are being asked. Discussing, finding out,

thinking critically, engaging in real work projects and problem-solving are important

for the learning process (Johnson, 2002).

Six aspects shape student learning outcomes for sociable motivation: (1) pleasure

and enjoyment of learning, (2) orientation to mastery the of material, (3) curiosity, (4)

tenacity in doing the task, (5) high involvement in the task, and (6) orientation towards

challenging, difficult and new tasks (Goleman, 2001). Table 8 shows that curiosity and

tenacity in doing tasks are more dominant in influencing learning outcomes than the

other four aspects.

The data also showed that the relationship between curiosity and tenacity in doing

the task was higher than the relationships with or between the other aspects. This

relationship between curiosity and tenacity to do the task affects students’ learning

outcomes in social studies. The learning outcomes of students in social studies who

have sociable motivation are influenced by curiosity and tenacity to do the task and

can be conditioned by teachers through cooperative learning (Muldayanti, 2013;

Dadds, 2002; McKeachie, 1990; Ginsberg, 2012; de Oliveira, 2016). Curiosity is an

attribute one can develop, in this case with cooperative learning. By learning with

friends, one can increase one's curiosity and make it a daily habit to become more


intelligent and knowledgeable. A sense of curiosity can be used to find solutions to

difficult tasks or situations.

The findings of this study support the results of Gillies (2004) and Gillies (2016),

that cooperative learning will accelerate learning outcomes. Students who participate

actively in class and learn with friends will more quickly understand what is learned.

Students dialogue with each other and take a role-play it because learning is not

individual (Chen, 2013). Students with sociable learning motivation require efficient

learning, and cooperative learning can help students solve problems and examine

study themes. Sociable children cannot compete with other children, because they

need scaffolding from their peers. Learning assistance from peers can eliminate

awkwardness; peer language is more easily understood. With peers, there is less

reluctance and embarrassment in learning to obtain better results and ask for help.

Interactions in peer groups do not exclude the possibility of students helping each

other. Peers provide cognitive, affective and psychomotor thinking solutions in an

atmosphere of cohesive learning activities, which result in innovative and productive

learning changes in the form of improved problem-solving skills and learning

achievement (Purnomo, 2013; Fauzi, 2013; Rahmawati, 2016).

Teachers’ commitment to using cooperative learning contributes greatly to the

achievement of student learning outcomes. Cooperative learning will encourage

sociable students to work together to acquire ideas in solving problems or themes and

collectively conveying solutions obtained. The learning outcomes for sociable students

in non-cooperative learning environments (competitive learning) are less likely to be

successful because the learning is on an individual basis (Johnson, 2002; Uhamista,

2016; Soebiyanto, 2016; Dudija, 2016; Pratiwi, 2015; Huda, 2016). A class with

heterogeneous students must be taught by cooperative learning (Cohen, 2015).

Discussion and Conclusion

Cooperative learning is an intervention for improving learning outcomes in the

field of social studies for primary school students who have sociable learning

motivation. Students who have sociable motivation are more suited to learning that

prioritizes cooperation instead of competition.

Student learning outcomes are built on curiosity and tenacity in doing the task.

Therefore, it is necessary to design and re-formulate the syntax of cooperative learning

to recognize it as an important variable in improving learning outcomes. It is also

necessary to develop further research, especially questionnaires used to measure

students' standardized motivation, which contains a more comprehensive aspect of

learning motivation.

This analysis was not able to determine whether student learning outcomes from

cooperative learning change over time for students with sociable learning motivation.

Also, this study was not able to determine how the six aspects of motivation are related

to learning outcomes. The relationship between the six aspects described in this study


93

is identified to recognize how aspects of learning motivation can produce significant

learning outcomes.

The research results will provide a meaningful contribution for elementary school

teachers providing social science learning to students who have sociable motivation.

Until now, teachers have given equal treatment to all students regardless of the

student’s type of motivation. Thus, teachers should identify each student’s type of

motivation before engaging in the learning process. Doing so will help ensure effective

learning because it is suited to the students’ needs. It would be better if the school

cooperates with certain parties, such as education researchers or government bodies

who have instruments to measure students’ motivation so teachers will have easy

access when they require data about their students’ motivation.

Acknowledgment

Thank you to the Department of Education, the principals, the teachers and

primary school students in Bandar Lampung City for their participation in this

research. We would also like to thank the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Universitas Lampung, for funding to conduct this research.

References

Albers, C. (2008). Improving pedagogy through action learning and scholarship of

teaching and learning. Journal of International Teaching Sociology, 79-86.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R.(2001). Taxonomy learning, teaching, and assessing.

NY: Longman.

Atak, M., Atik, I., & Ceylan, İ. (2016). A research on the effect of career and job getting

perception on learning motivation and career development efforts. International

Journal of Educational Researchers, 7(1), 1-16.

Ary, D.,. Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education: Eight

edition. Canada: Nelson Education ltd.

Baron, R.A., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Behavior in organization: Understanding and

managing the human side of work. Allyn and Bacon, New York.

Ball, A., Bowling, A., & Bird, W. (2016). A case study of learning, motivation, and

performance strategies for teaching and coaching CDE teams. Journal of

Agricultural Education, 57(3), 115-128.

Bonett, D.G., & Wright, T.A. (2015). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation,

hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

36(1), 3-15.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.


Carin, A.A. (1993). Teaching science through discovery. USA: Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four

learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 56-

72.

Chen, Y.L. (2013). A missing piece of the contemporary character education puzzle:

The ındividualisation of moral character. Studies in Philosophy and Education,

32(4), 345-360.

Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup,

C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining high‐performing

collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(1), 31-38.

Clapper, T.C. (2015). Cooperative-based learning and the zone of proximal

development. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 148-158.

Cohen, E.G., & Press, C. (2015). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom. USA: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Cook, D.T., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design & analysis for field

settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Costa, R. (2014). Effective teaching methods ın the master's degree: learning strategies,

teaching-learning processess, teacher training. European Scientific Journal, (1), 106-

120.

Dadds, M. (2002). Taking curiosity seriously: The role of awe and wanda inresearch-

based professionalism. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 9-26.

De Oliveira, M.L.B., Bezerra, I.M.P., Machado, M.D.F.A.S., Sorpreso, I.C.E., Raposo,

F.A.G., Pinasco, G.C., & de Abreu, L.C. (2016). Health education: Curiosity as a

parameter of the freirian model in primary care. International Archives of Medicine,

9(1).

Dudija, N. (2016). Cooperative vs competitive: Filosofi keseimbangan “yin-yang”

dalam hubungan ınterdependency. Buletin Psikologi, 23(2), 65-81.

Fauzi, A. (2013). Hubungan antara keharmonisan keluarga dan dukungan sosial teman sebaya

dengan perilaku prososial remaja di sman 2 jombang. (Doctoral Dissertation). UIN

Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Fernandez-Rio, J., Sanz, N., Fernandez-Cando, J., & Santos, L. (2017). Impact of a

sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation. Physical

Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 89-105.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language

learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


95

Gillies, R.M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3.

Ginsberg, A.E. (2012). Embracing risk in urban education: Curiosity, creativity, and

courage in the era of" no excuses" and relay race reform. R&L Education.

Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C.Cherniss

and D. Goleman (Ed.), The emotionally ıntelligent workplace. Jossey-Bass.

Gommans, R., Segers, E., Burk, W.J., & Scholte, R.H. (2015). The role of perceived

popularity on collaborative learning: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 107(2), 599.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kagan, S., Sharan, S., Slavin, R., & Webb, C. (Eds.). (2013).

Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. Springer Science & Business Media.

Huang, Y. M., Liao, Y. W., Huang, S. H., & Chen, H. C. (2014). A jigsaw-based

cooperative learning approach to ımprove learning outcomes for mobile situated

learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1).

Huda, N., & Buditjahjanto, I.G.P.A. (2016). Pengaruh model pembelajaran kooperatif

tipe jigsaw dan model pengajaran langsung terhadap hasil belajar siswa pada

mata pelajaran teknik elektronika dasar kelas x tei di smkn 1 jetis mojokerto.

Jurnal Mahasiswa Teknologi Pendidikan, 5(1).

Hendarwati, E. (2016). Pengaruh pemanfaatan lingkungan sebagai sumber belajar

melalui metode ınkuiri terhadap hasil belajar siswa SDN I sribit delanggu pada

pelajaran IPS. Pedagogia, 2(1), 59-70.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W.B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation for education sciences

(2nd ed.). San Diego 92107: EdITS Publishers.

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., ... &

Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative

learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 63(1), 125-142.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta

analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95-105.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990).The impact of leader

and member group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of

Social Psychology, 130, 507-516.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,

competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jo, J., Park, J., Ji, H., Yang, Y., & Lim, H. (2016). A study on factor analysis to support

knowledge based decisions for a smart class. Information Technology and

Management, 17(1), 43-56.


Lantolf, J.P., Thorne, S.L., & Poehner, M.E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second

language development. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction,

207-226.

Leasa, M., & Corebima, A. D. (2017, January). The effect of numbered heads together

(NHT) cooperative learning model on the cognitive achievement of students with

different academic ability. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 795, No. 1,

p. 012071). IOP Publishing.

Liu, Y., & Gao, Y. (2011). Cooperative learning strategy. Beijing Normal University Press.

Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative

assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different

feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85-98.

Maulidi, A.Y., Hamid, A., & Leny, L. (2016). Komparasi hasil belajar kognitif siswa

antara penggunaan lks berbasis learning cycle 3 fase dan non lks pada materi

reaksi redoks kelas x sma negeri 10 banjarmasin. Quantum, 5(2).

McKeachie, W.J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 189.

Muldayanti, N.D. (2013). Pembelajaran biologi model STAD dan TGT ditinjau dari

keingintahuan dan minat belajar siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia

(Indonesian Journal of Science Education), 2(1).

Nashar. (2004). Peranan motivasi dan kemampuan awal dalam kegiatan pembelajaran.

Jakarta: Delia Press.

Nurjanah, S.I., & Ragil, W.A. (2012). Model kooperatif tipe TGT untuk meningkatkan

pemahaman konsep koperasi pada mata pelajaran IPS. Didaktika Dwija Indria,

2(2).

Pangesti, A. (2014). Pengaruh motivasi terhadap prestasi belajar pada siswa mts bahrul ulum

kecamatan ukui kabupaten pelalawan. (Doctoral Dissertation). Universitas Islam

Negeri Sultan Sarif Kasim Riau.

Pratiwi, Y., Mulyani, S., & Ashadi, A. (2015). Upaya peningkatan prestasi belajar dan

ınteraksi sosial siswa dengan menggunakan metode pembelajaran Teams Games

Tournament (TGT) dilengkapi media peta konsep pada materi kelarutan dan

hasil kali kelarutan siswa kelas Xi IPA SMA Batik 1 surakarta. Jurnal Pendidikan

Kimia, 4(1), 182-188.

Purnomo, K.I., Murti,B., & Suriyasa, P. (2013). Perbandingan pengaruh metode

pendidikan sebaya dan metode ceramah terhadap pengetahuan dan sikap

pengendalian hiv/aids pada mahasiswa fakultas olahraga dan kesehatan

universitas pendidikan ganesha. Jurnal Magister Kedokteran Keluarga, 1(1), 49-56.

Rahmawati, E.D. (2016). Pengaruh pergaulan teman sebaya dan konsep diri terhadap

kecerdasan emosional siswa kelas V SD Negeri Se-Gugus III kecamatan tegalrejo

yogyakarta tahun ajaran 2014/2015. Basic Education, 4(14).


97

Rainsch, S. (2004). Dynamic strategic analysis: Demistyfying simple succes strategies.

Wiesbaden: Deutcscher Universitasts-verlag.

Reigeluth, C., Myers, R., & Lee, D. (2016). The learner-centered paradigm of education.

Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV: The Learner-Centered Paradigm

of Education, 5.

Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational behaviour. New York: Prentice Hall.

Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamental research statistic for the behavior sciences. (2nd,ed), Holt.

New York: Rinehart and Winston.

Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal

development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a Reading

Partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620.

Soebiyanto, S., Masykuri, M., & Ashadi, A. (2016). Pembelajaran kimia menggunakan

model Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) dan Team Games

Tournament (TGT) ditinjau dari kemampuan awal dan gaya belajar. Jurnal Kimia

dan Pendidikan Kimia, 1(1), 52-66.

Shadish, W.R. (1995) Philosophy of Science an the Quantitatve-Qualitative Debates: Thirteen

common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75.

Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

design for generalized causal ınference. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know,

what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.

Slavin, R. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does

groupwork work? Anales De Psicologia, 30, 785-791.

Slavin, R.E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3-13, 43(1),

5-14.

Smith, J., van Eerde, H., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole‐class

scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834.

Sumaryati, E. (2013). Pendekatan ınduktif-deduktif disertai strategi think-pair-square-

share untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pemahaman dan berpikir kritis serta

disposisi matematis siswa SMA. Infinity Journal, 2(1), 26-42.

Taghibaygi, M., Rafe, M., & Moosavi, S.A. (2015). Analysis students’ motivation in

vocational schools and agricultural training centers in kermanshah province

toward studying the field of agriculture. International Journal of Advanced

Biological and Biomedical Research, 3(1), 105-114.

Uhamista, U. (2016). Pengaruh pendekatan belajar kooperatif dan belajar kompetitif

serta kemampuan motorik terhadap pengembangan self esteem melalui kegiatan

olahraga permainan pada siswa sekolah dasar. Journal of Physical Education and

Sport, 1(2), 34-44.


Ulstad, S.O., Halvari, H., Sørebø, Ø., & Deci, E.L. (2016). Motivation, learning

strategies, and performance in physical education at secondary school. Advances

in Physical Education, 6(01), 27.

Wang, T. (2002). The basic concept of cooperative learning.Educational Research, (2), 68-

72.

Wang, T. (2005). The analysis of theoretical basis of cooperative learning.

Curriculum,Teaching Material and Method(1), 30-35.

Wilson, K., & Devereux, L. (2014). Scaffolding theory: High challenge, high support in

Academic Language and Learning (ALL) contexts. Journal of Academic Language

and Learning, 8(3), A91-A100.

Xue, G., & Lingling, L. (2018). A comparative study on cooperative learning in

multimedia and network environment used by english majors between China

Mainland and Taiwan. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(1), 127-135.

Xu Xueping. (2012). Research the theory of cooperative learning in English teaching.

Journal of Gansu Normal Colleges, 17(1), 119-120.

Yulyani, S.D., Sundari, N., & Hamid, S.I. (2016). Meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir

kritis siswa melalui model cooperative learning teknik send a problem dalam

pembelajaran IPS SD. Jurnal PGSD Kampus Cibiru, 4(3).

Yu, H., Zheng, Z., & Zheng, W. (2008). Understanding user behavior in large scale video on

demand systems. In L. Song (Ed.). Collaboration: New York.

Zhang, Z., Coutinho, E., Deng, J., & Schuller, B. (2015). Cooperative learning and its

application to emotion recognition from speech. IEEE/ACM Transactions on

Audio, Speech and Language Processing (TASLP), 23(1), 115-126.

Zhang, X., Meng, Y., de Pablos, P. O., & Sun, Y. (2017). Learning analytics in

collaborative learning supported by Slack: From the perspective of engagement.

Computers in Human Behavior, 1-9. Doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.012

Documents

EURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHrepository.lppm.unila.ac.id/8711/1/ejer18 - Masuk... · [email protected] Tel: +90 312 425 81 50 pbx Fax: +90 312 425 81 11 Printing Date